+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Joan of Valois is known as Joan of France

  1. #1
    a Relic LordofSaxony's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDeus VultEU3 CompleteDivine WindHearts of Iron III
    Heir to the ThroneRome GoldSengokuSword of the StarsVictoria 2
    Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of DarknessMount & Blade: WarbandCK2: Holy Knight500k club

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    On the other side of reality.
    Posts
    833

    Joan of Valois is known as Joan of France

    The title is just an example. I was wondering, what determines when a person switches from a dynasty surname (ie, Valois) to their kingdom name (ie, France) in historical documents?

    This already happened in CK1 with province names, should this also happen at the kingdom level as well? If so, what would make this change? Should the bastard child of a king be known this way? Should it be reserved for the 1st born? Should it be recorded in the AAR this way? Should this be another form of a 'title', such a William the Conqueror? Should this be reserved for the spouse of the ruler? (ie, King Henry IV Plantagenet marries Margaret of Aragon, or Queen Mary Tudor marries Philip of Spain)?

    It's basically all just RPG aesthetics, not really necessary for gameplay reasons, but could be nice to have.

  2. #2
    Field Marshal
    Crusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteHearts of Iron IIIHeir to the ThroneSemper Fi
    Victoria 2Hoi 2 Beta500k club

    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Paris, Union européenne
    Posts
    6,229
    of France mean that Joan is from the dynastic house that currently rule France.
    of Valois mean that Joan descend from the cadet branch of the dynastic house that ruled the appanage of Valois before.
    Capet is the nickname of his ancestor Hugues who founded the dynastic House of Joan. Sort of patronymic even if I doubt it was used in the medieval ages.
    the Good is the nickname of Joan which mean that he is good at swordsmanship.

    So Jean de France, Jean de Valois, Jean Capet and Jean le Bon is the same person and all those names are corrects.

    There is no switch and there is no changes but lots of alternative ways of calling him, just like we can call the current president of France Nicolas Sarközy de Nagy-Bocsa, Nicolas de Nagy-Bocsa or Nicolas Sarkozy (with or without the ¨ on the o).

    So I don't think that Crusader Kings should "rename" or "switch" characters name as it would be coding time for the developers for an incorrect (historically or orthographically) aesthetic feature.
    Last edited by Captain Frakas; 31-01-2011 at 00:45.
    One does not put a king on trial. One kills him.
    One cannot reign innocently: the insanity of doing so is evident. Every king is a rebel and a usurper.
    Saint Just.

  3. #3
    Modding Paladin RedRooster81's Avatar
    Cities in MotionCrusader Kings IIDeus VultEU3 CompleteDivine Wind
    Heir to the ThroneRome GoldMount & Blade: Warband500k club

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Castle of Aaaggggggh
    Posts
    5,585
    In my experience, it was a way of marking foreign-born royal consorts (e.g., Catarina de Trastamara y Trastamara became Catherine of Aragon once she married Arthur, Prince of Wales). But in some cases, it did denote illegitimacy, famously Karl V's bastard John of Austria (the hero of Lepanto), who was known by equivalent names in German and Spanish at the time.

    As to whether or not it would be desirable to use this concept in CK2, I think that it could be used in place of the patronymic of bastard children (in my example, name: Juan; patronymic: de Austria; dynasty: von Habsburg), but I don't think that I would change the names of consorts.

  4. #4
    Field Marshal
    Crusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteHearts of Iron IIIHeir to the ThroneSemper Fi
    Victoria 2Hoi 2 Beta500k club

    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Paris, Union européenne
    Posts
    6,229
    She did not became "Catherine of Aragon". She always was Catherine of Aragon, because she is a member of the house that rule the kingdom of Aragon.

    Her name didn't changed in anyway.
    (as I previously said).

    It's not a "way of marking foreign-born royal consort".
    (Spaniards call her catholic queen Isabel "Isabel de Castilla";
    it's related to titles ruled by the house, not to geographic origin, for example the queen of France Anne d'Autriche was a Spanish lady)

    It's not a way to denote illegitimacy.
    (the duke Louis of Bavaria wasn't a bastard)


    I repeat myself but it's just that you have a lot of way to call a same character.
    And in some case authors use one way or another depending of their tastes.
    Last edited by Captain Frakas; 31-01-2011 at 00:21.
    One does not put a king on trial. One kills him.
    One cannot reign innocently: the insanity of doing so is evident. Every king is a rebel and a usurper.
    Saint Just.

  5. #5
    Modding Paladin RedRooster81's Avatar
    Cities in MotionCrusader Kings IIDeus VultEU3 CompleteDivine Wind
    Heir to the ThroneRome GoldMount & Blade: Warband500k club

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Castle of Aaaggggggh
    Posts
    5,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Frakas View Post
    She did not became "Catherine of Aragon". She always was Catherine of Aragon, because she is a member of the house that rule the kingdom of Aragon.

    Her name didn't changed in anyway.
    It's not a "way of marking foreign-born royal consort".
    It's not a way to denote illegitimacy.

    It's just that you have a lot of way to call a same character. And in some case authors use one way or another depending of their tastes.
    I respectfully disagree at least as regards Catherine. In time, she assumed a new identity as "Katharine the Quene," as she signed her own correspondence. In Spain she had a different identity, the daughter of Fernando and Isabel, a dynast of the House of Trastamara.

    But we are talking about two different things I think. I am talking about internal changes and character development (which I think is critical to a role-playing game such as CK2 is IMO), more along the lines of psychology; you are talking about different ways to call the same person, depending on dynasty and place of origin. So I don't see room for argument here.

  6. #6
    Field Marshal
    Crusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteHearts of Iron IIIHeir to the ThroneSemper Fi
    Victoria 2Hoi 2 Beta500k club

    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Paris, Union européenne
    Posts
    6,229
    I don't know Catherine, and I accept that she assumed a new identity as Katherine the Quene (but it just mean queen Catherine for me).
    What I commented was that she "became Catherine of Aragon once she married Arthur, Prince of Wales" (which is untrue) :

    She is (and always was) Catherine of Aragon because she is the daughter of Fernando of Aragon and thus belong to the house of Aragon.
    It's how they are called in Spain too.

    http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_II_de_Arag%C3%B3n
    http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalina_de_Arag%C3%B3n

    What I say is that those different names doesn't result of change (it doesn't change except when a new title is gained, so Guillaume de Normandie become Guillaume d'Angleterre he take the English crown). They are just alternatively used, following tastes. But both are always correct, for all the moment of her life.

    Here is a contemporary example: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Ca...de_Espa%C3%B1a
    He is both called Juan Carlos de España (because his dynastic house rule the kingdom of Spain) and Juan Carlos de Borbón (because he descend from the Bourbon cadet branch of the Capetian dynasty)

    According to that, either the game should always display all the possible name for a character, or chose just one way to describe them. But they should certainly not change with time (excepted when new titles are acquired) because it doesn't make sense.

    (ps: I edited my previous post)
    (pps: and all my comment are also respectful and I hope that they are understood like this )
    Last edited by Captain Frakas; 31-01-2011 at 00:46.
    One does not put a king on trial. One kills him.
    One cannot reign innocently: the insanity of doing so is evident. Every king is a rebel and a usurper.
    Saint Just.

  7. #7
    Modding Paladin RedRooster81's Avatar
    Cities in MotionCrusader Kings IIDeus VultEU3 CompleteDivine Wind
    Heir to the ThroneRome GoldMount & Blade: Warband500k club

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Castle of Aaaggggggh
    Posts
    5,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Frakas View Post
    I don't know Catherine, and I accept that she assumed a new identity as Katherine the Quene (but it just mean queen Catherine for me).
    What I commented was that she "became Catherine of Aragon once she married Arthur, Prince of Wales" (which is untrue) :

    She is (and always was) Catherine of Aragon because she is the daughter of Fernando of Aragon and thus belong to the house of Aragon.
    It's how they are called in Spain too.

    http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_II_de_Arag%C3%B3n
    http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalina_de_Arag%C3%B3n

    What I say is that those different names doesn't result of change (it doesn't change except when a new title is gained, so Guillaume de Normandie become Guillaume d'Angleterre he take the English crown). They are just alternatively used, following tastes. But both are always correct, for all the moment of her life.

    (ps: I edited my previous post)
    (pps: and all my comment are also respectful and I hope that they are understood like this )
    I see what you mean, and in this and other threads I have come to respect your opinions.

    Respectfully yours,
    Rooster

  8. #8
    Field Marshal
    Crusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteHearts of Iron IIIHeir to the ThroneSemper Fi
    Victoria 2Hoi 2 Beta500k club

    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Paris, Union européenne
    Posts
    6,229


    However, I agree with you when you say that it could be used instead of patronymic. But I would not apply it to bastards or consort, but rather to all cultures that doesn't use patronymics. So instead of being called Philippe Ier Capet, the king of France (and his descendants) would be called Philippe Ier de France (well, not necessary Philippe ). And then, in the second line we would read "Capet", in the third "king of France", in the fourth "frank catholic" and in the fifth, Paris)

    (like in this character sheet: http://www.cyberstratege.com/magazin...gs-0111-19.jpg)
    One does not put a king on trial. One kills him.
    One cannot reign innocently: the insanity of doing so is evident. Every king is a rebel and a usurper.
    Saint Just.

  9. #9
    Forgetful troubadour Cèsar de Quart's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteDivine WindHeir to the ThroneVictoria 2
    Victoria II: A House Divided500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    El Pont de Mar Blava (Barcelona - Montpellier)
    Posts
    2,083
    At what point did the House of Barcelona became the House of Aragon? When did the Trastámara reigning in Aragon started signing "of Aragon"? Well, I think they didn't. They were always known by their given name, and other addition is just flavour of the moment.

    I think we all know here that there was no such thing as general census or registry of population in the Middle Ages, at least in Western Europe. And even in those places where there was an actual census (almost every city had a census of citizens), the names used by the people inscribed in them were not official. Names were not official at all, especially surnames.

    William, Duke of Normandy, didn't became anything when he conquered England. He was still William. Some people knew him as the Bastard, and some others started to call him the Conqueror. To flatter him, probably. But he was still William. William of Normandy to many, but I insist: his name was William.

    Catherine of Aragon was Catarina. Katherina, Catalina, Caterina... all are different ways to say the same name in different languages. But she was Catherine, from the House of Trastámara, ruling dynasty in Aragon.

    Usually, princes took as "surname" the name of either their family or their most prestigious title. There you have the House of Lusignan. In France they became lots of things, but used to be known as "de Lusignan". Except when they were Kings of Cyprus, a kingdom is serious stuff and it goes beyond anything else.

    Anyway, I like that there are patronymics, family names and more flexibility with names.

  10. #10
    Field Marshal
    Crusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteHearts of Iron IIIHeir to the ThroneSemper Fi
    Victoria 2Hoi 2 Beta500k club

    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Paris, Union européenne
    Posts
    6,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Cèsar de Quart View Post
    William, Duke of Normandy, didn't became anything when he conquered England. He was still William. Some people knew him as the Bastard, and some others started to call him the Conqueror. To flatter him, probably. But he was still William. William of Normandy to many, but I insist: his name was William.
    Yes we agree. Perhaps that I wasn't clear enough but what I wanted to say is that "d'Angleterre" became another possible way to call Guillaume/William after he become king of England. (because before, people will not link Guillaume with England and thus understand who is this Willam of England). Not that peoples would stop to call him Guillaume de Normandie. Just he gained another way to qualify him: de Normandie, d'Angleterre, le Bâtard, le Conquérant...

    The idea is that you don't misunderstand who I talk about when I say Guillaume... If I say Guillaume de Normandie/d'Angleterre/le Bâtard/le Conquérant, you'll understand that I talk about the Guillaume who invaded England and not Guillaume the son of the count of Blablablah or Guillaume who work on the stables.
    One does not put a king on trial. One kills him.
    One cannot reign innocently: the insanity of doing so is evident. Every king is a rebel and a usurper.
    Saint Just.

  11. #11
    Defensor Fidei et Ecclesiae Hawkeye1489's Avatar
    200k clubCrusader Kings IIDeus VultDiplomacyEuropa Universalis 3
    Europa Universalis: RomeVictoria 2Rome: Vae VictisCK2: Holy Knight500k club

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Patrimonium Sancti Petri
    Posts
    507
    I know from various experience that in a later date, the surname "de France" was reserved for the legitimate born children of the reigning King, while "de Bourbon" was used by illegitimate offspring during the Bourbon Reign.
    Resident Theologian & Catholic Apologist

    Servant of the Invincible Light and Chronology Codificator for Lux Invicta: Shaytana's Crusader Kings 2 Overhaul Mod

  12. #12
    Forgetful troubadour Cèsar de Quart's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteDivine WindHeir to the ThroneVictoria 2
    Victoria II: A House Divided500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    El Pont de Mar Blava (Barcelona - Montpellier)
    Posts
    2,083
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Frakas View Post
    Yes we agree. Perhaps that I wasn't clear enough but what I wanted to say is that "d'Angleterre" became another possible way to call Guillaume/William after he become king of England. (because before, people will not link Guillaume with England and thus understand who is this Willam of England). Not that peoples would stop to call him Guillaume de Normandie. Just he gained another way to qualify him: de Normandie, d'Angleterre, le Bâtard, le Conquérant...

    The idea is that you don't misunderstand who I talk about when I say Guillaume... If I say Guillaume de Normandie/d'Angleterre/le Bâtard/le Conquérant, you'll understand that I talk about the Guillaume who invaded England and not Guillaume the son of the count of Blablablah or Guillaume who work on the stables.
    The whole idea of Guillaume or William is somehow anachronistic, since his name wasn't Guillaume or William, but Guilelm or Wilelm, and he signed Wilelmus.

    But yes, he just gained apellatives for his real name, which is the only one valid.

  13. #13
    Field Marshal
    Crusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteHearts of Iron IIIHeir to the ThroneSemper Fi
    Victoria 2Hoi 2 Beta500k club

    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Paris, Union européenne
    Posts
    6,229
    This Guilelm have the right to sign as he want, but I live in the XXIst century, and I call him with our XXIst century language in a XXIst century forum. Thus I deny being "anachronistic".

    Guilelm, like all names, is a word. A word translated Guillaume in contemporary French. I'll not post here in Old French or in Old English. It won't make me less anachronistic, because I am not one of the dramatis personae but a forum user and a player.

    ---
    Thanks, I learned the word appellative.
    But it's not the only one valid. For example in later medieval era, one could simply call a prince by his estates names.
    When you talk about Bourgogne, about Orléans, about Dunois, everybody understand that you talk about the current duke of Burgundy, the current duke of Orléans and the current count of Dunois. You don't have to use the first-name. And it's valid (as they are understood, which is the sole purpose of a name).
    Last edited by Captain Frakas; 01-02-2011 at 02:49.
    One does not put a king on trial. One kills him.
    One cannot reign innocently: the insanity of doing so is evident. Every king is a rebel and a usurper.
    Saint Just.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts